calendar_list_calendars

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds that the result is scoped to the authenticated account's access and includes access_role, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, auth scope requirements, or other operational behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a terse return-format note. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial zero-parameter, read-only list operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is close to complete. It clearly states the returned fields and access scope, though it could optionally clarify pagination or large-result behavior given openWorldHint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no real properties except a required empty 'params' object, so there are effectively no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'List all calendars the authenticated account can access.' It also details the return shape as a JSON list of {id, summary, primary, access_role}, which unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like calendar_list_events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when you need the set of accessible calendars, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives or mention related tools like calendar_list_events. There is no exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.